By "aggressively within the bounds of the law", I was suggesting that the IRS's position and court's position was already taken into consideration (not just the

By "aggressively within the bounds of the law", I was suggesting that the IRS's position and court's position was already taken into consideration (not just the low chance of being audited). Regardless, surely it's possible to have situations where distributions are legitimately greater than zero. If I'm an absentee owner who pays a manager to operate my business, my distributions shouldn't be treated as wages. I see it as a continuum -- on one end, you have cheaters who are paying themselves $10k annually and taking the rest as distributions. On the other end, you have absentee owners who should legitimately be able to claim distributions. In the middle there are many shades of gray.